Radell v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (563/93) [1995] ZASCA 35; 1995 (4) SA 24 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 392 (A) (29 March 1995)

Radell v Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (563/93) [1995] ZASCA 35; 1995 (4) SA 24 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 392 (A) (29 March 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in using the exchange rate at the date of the tender to compare the value of the tender and the award. The correct approach, consistent with the principle of currency nominalism and established case law, is to use the exchange rate at the date of judgment, as that is when the award becomes payable. The court found that, when converted at the judgment date exchange rate, the award exceeded the tender. Consequently, the costs order made by the trial court was incorrect and had to be set aside. However, due to the limited record, the appellate court could not make a final determination on the costs of the trial and remitted the...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 35
Parties
Appellant: Lesley Radell; Respondent: Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1995
Case Number
563/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; costs order of trial court set aside; matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration of costs.
Judges
Joubert, Nestadt, Steyn, F H Grosskopf, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Currency Nominalism, Conversion of Foreign Awards, Rule 34 Tender, Exchange Rate Fluctuation
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Currency Nominalism Conversion of Foreign Awards Rule 34 Tender Exchange Rate Fluctuation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesley Radell

Appellant

Multilateral Motor Vehicle Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Costs Order Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in comparing the value of the tender and the award using the exchange rate at the date of the tender rather than the date of judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the principle of currency nominalism applies to the conversion of US dollar awards to rand for the purpose of determining costs.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order made by the trial court should be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in using the exchange rate at the date of the tender to compare the value of the tender and the award. The correct approach, consistent with the principle of currency nominalism and established case law, is to use the exchange rate at the date of judgment, as that is when the award becomes payable. The court found that, when converted at the judgment date exchange rate, the award exceeded the tender. Consequently, the costs order made by the trial court was incorrect and had to be set aside. However, due to the limited record, the appellate court could not make a final determination on the costs of the trial and remitted the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; costs order of trial court set aside; matter remitted to trial court for reconsideration of costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The costs order made by the trial court on 15 June 1993 is set aside.